Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

FunLover18

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it is highly unethical for a government to do something that benefits it, and by extension, the country?

A strange interpretation.

A stranger interpretation to suggest that what benefits the government by extension benefits the country.

Holy Mary

blanch152 wrote: »

Cosgrave has been all over this from the start. Surprised that you haven't been following him on Twitter.

Now what grudge could he possibly have!

''A defamation action taken by the doctor at the centre of the Leo Varadkar leak controversy against Web Summit founder Paddy Cosgrave has been settled.

Dr Maitiú Ó Tuathail, a well-known general practitioner, sued Mr Cosgrave over false comments he made on social media last April, including a claim the doctor was “involved in spin and deception”.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/leak-controversy-doctor-settles-libel-action-against-web-summit-chief-39700302.html

caveat emptor

It's clear skulduggery intended to force the other party's hand in the negotiation and give his friend's union a bit of a boost.

If you think that's ok, fine. Negotiations are entered into in good faith. This was clearly done in bad faith for a nefarious reason.i.e force the IMO to accept terms quicker than they probably would have.

JeffKenna

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it is highly unethical for a government to do something that benefits it, and by extension, the country?

A strange interpretation.

You're really losing the debate here badly.

dundalkfc10

The goalpost shifting from "he did nothing wrong" to "he did nothing illegal" to "he admits he'd have handled it better now" is pathetic

If there was no case to answer, this would have been quashed in 10 minutes.

Floppybits

smurgen wrote: »

Are you suggesting that rules and laws should be decided by individuals? If the basis is for the good of the country alot can be justified.

That is exactly what Blanch is saying, infact it seems to be the line that FF and FG are saying. Sure the Justice Minister sees no issue with releasing confidential files.

Hopefully today they will get into the timeline of when the document was given to the IMO, to the Opposition and made publicly available compared to when Varadkar sent the file to his buddy.

I don't know how anyone can stand over the Taoiseach of the country sending a confidential document to a third party via back channels, it just looks so dodgey. If the documents were in the public why didn't he just have his secretary or one of aides handle the request and follow normal process. This just doesn't add up. Blanch and his mates can wave their arms and say nothing to see here but there is and no amount of hand waving and shoo shooing is going to change that.

smurgen

Floppybits wrote: »

That is exactly what Blanch is saying, infact it seems to be the line that FF and FG are saying. Sure the Justice Minister sees no issue with releasing confidential files.

Hopefully today they will get into the timeline of when the document was given to the IMO, to the Opposition and made publicly available compared to when Varadkar sent the file to his buddy.

I don't know how anyone can stand over the Taoiseach of the country sending a confidential document to a third party via back channels, it just looks so dodgey. If the documents were in the public why didn't he just have his secretary or one of aides handle the request and follow normal process. This just doesn't add up. Blanch and his mates can wave their arms and say nothing to see here but there is and no amount of hand waving and shoo shooing is going to change that.

They're turning the courts into Kangaroo courts.

Floppybits

smurgen wrote: »

They're turning the courts into Kangaroo courts.

It's the hypocrisy that gets to me, you have the likes of Blanch and few others sitting up high on their pedestals there looking down and insulting anyone who dares have a opposite opinion to them or who doesn't agree with them when it comes to the parties they support but when the shoe is on the other foot you have the likes of Blanch screeching and screaming about how this person or this party can't be trusted and yet when one of their own to do it, it's grand it was the country, you can smell the bull crap coming a mile away.

For one when this is over I will be holding this over those posters who see nothing in it for a long time. They no longer have a moral or ethical leg to stand on again. Dare I say it Blanch and his mates are no better than those they insult.

Leftwaffe

I assume Leo is still going ahead with his defamation case? Heard nothing about it since strangely...

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Cosgrave has been all over this from the start. Surprised that you haven't been following him on Twitter.

All over it and suggesting he's behind it are two completely different things.

You've been all over several Shinner story's - does that mean you're behind them?

dundalkfc10

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

The goalpost shifting from "he did nothing wrong" to "he did nothing illegal" to "he admits he'd have handled it better now" is pathetic

If there was no case to answer, this would have been quashed in 10 minutes.

agree totally and this "it wasn't best practice" went out on a swing with Maria Bailey.. so its not best practice Taoiseach but it is your practice though.

JeffKenna

Holy Mary wrote: »

Thank you for the sources, the joy they're bringing,
thanks for all the tips you're singing
Who could live without them
I ask in all honesty
what would we be
Without a source or a leak we would be
inside a dictatorship somewhere like North Korea?
So I say thankyou for the sources
For giving them to me.

Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

Holy Mary

RandomViewer

Floppybits wrote: »

The big question is how will there ever be any accountability on the Dail now. FG supposedly the party of law and order and telling everyone that it's ok to leak documents through unauthorised back channels, regardless of whether the document is in the public or not, we had the justice minister on yesterday saying that this is ok, now what happens if another party in opposition leaks a confidential document how can they be held to account? There is no way that FG or FF now after backing Leo can ever hold anyone else to account.

They were never the party of law and order, they were the party that used the forces of law and order for their own gain.

FrancieBrady

What you are seeing here is the toxicity of the power swap. These guys and gals play at opposition, it's a game. But when the chips are down and they are presented with an opportunity to create real change, to get rid of the cronyism and corruption, they circle the wagons and protect each other.

They are in government together after shoring each other up in the previous government, precisely for that reason - to protect the power.

Toxic and needs to be taken down by whomsoever.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

All over it and suggesting he's behind it are two completely different things.

You've been all over several Shinner story's - does that mean you're behind them?

Its in the irish times...cosgrave directed chay bowes to the village magazine


This aparently somehow excuses,what varadkar been upto??

McMurphy

Holy Mary wrote: »

Thank you for the sources, the joy they're bringing,
thanks for all the tips you're singing
Who could live without them
I ask in all honesty
what would we be
Without a source or a leak we would be
inside a dictatorship somewhere like North Korea?
So I say thankyou for the sources
For giving them to me.

Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj4_Km11F0Q

It's not over until the holy Mary sings. Dafuq an ABBA song has to do with it is way beyond me though.

smurgen

Deleted User wrote: »

Its in the irish times...cosgrave directed chay bowes to the village magazine


This aparently somehow excuses,what varadkar been upto??

Haha grasping at straws.

RandomViewer

McMurphy wrote: »

It's not over until the holy Mary sings. Dafuq an ABBA song has to do with it is way beyond me though.

If we say we will be accused of multiple isms

Bannasidhe

Holy Mary wrote: »

Now what grudge could he possibly have!

''A defamation action taken by the doctor at the centre of the Leo Varadkar leak controversy against Web Summit founder Paddy Cosgrave has been settled.

Dr Maitiú Ó Tuathail, a well-known general practitioner, sued Mr Cosgrave over false comments he made on social media last April, including a claim the doctor was “involved in spin and deception”.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/leak-controversy-doctor-settles-libel-action-against-web-summit-chief-39700302.html

Grudge or no grudge - Varadker admitted he sent the doc to a person who would not normally have been sent it via unofficial channels so it matter not a whit whether Paddy Cosgrave as a grudge - Varadker handed him ammo on a plate.

I am honestly shocked the lengths people are going to to excuse a Taoiseach ignoring procedures to provide information on a negotiation that had yet to be completely finalised to a personal friend.

I don't give a monkey's what party that Taoiseach is from, I am sick to the back teeth of nods and winks and back channels. Of tents and golf societies. Of cushy jobs on boards after (state pensioned) 'retirement'. Of rejected TDs sitting out the time until they can run again in the Seanad. Of white collared dippers in public funds never getting their collars felt by the law. Of private companies and individuals making millions providing shoddy 'services' on behalf of the State. Of individuals to locked into pathetic tribal polities that they will excuse anything to get one other on the other guys'.
Of zero accountability because all that matters is 'our' party is in power.

Floppybits

Deleted User wrote: »

Its in the irish times...cosgrave directed chay bowes to the village magazine


This aparently somehow excuses,what varadkar been upto??

I think it says a lot about the "main stream media" that when the whistleblower sought advice on who they should go too they were told to go to this magazine. We all know that if the person went to the main stream media outlets it would be buried. Sure only have to look at the hachet job they tried to do on Maurice McCabe to see that.

seamus

rusty cole wrote: »

agree totally and this "it wasn't best practice" went out on a swing with Maria Bailey.. so its not best practice Taoiseach but it is your practice though.

To be fair, the Maria Bailey thing is entirely different.

Even though no-one was willing to say it for fear of being sued, Bailey was clearly attempting to engage in insurance fraud. Or at the very least make a very frivilous insurance claim with an inflated compensation demand.

Unless it can be shown that there was personal gain in this for Leo, then it will be seen a relatively small breach of process.

I note with some positivity though, that it's great to see people getting worked up by such a relatively inconsequential scandal. It's not that long ago that this country's scandals involved IRA gun-runners being elected Taoiseach, cronyism and profiteering on a massive scale, "You try keeping 3 houses on a TDs salary", an Attorney General providing room & board to a murderer, and former terrorists and murderers being elected to the Dáil.

Headlines because a confidential document was shared with a mate for apparently no reason other than a simple favour, goes to show how far we actually have come in battling corruption in this country, even if it doesn't feel like it.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, the Maria Bailey thing is entirely different.

Even though no-one was willing to say it for fear of being sued, Bailey was clearly attempting to engage in insurance fraud. Or at the very least make a very frivilous insurance claim with an inflated compensation demand.

Unless it can be shown that there was personal gain in this for Leo, then it will be seen a relatively small breach of process.

I note with some positivity though, that it's great to see people getting worked up by such a relatively inconsequential scandal. It's not that long ago that this country's scandals involved IRA gun-runners being elected Taoiseach, cronyism and profiteering on a massive scale, "You try keeping 3 houses on a TDs salary", an Attorney General providing room & board to a murderer, and former terrorists and murderers being elected to the Dáil.

Headlines because a confidential document was shared with a mate for apparently no reason other than a simple favour, goes to show how far we actually have come in battling corruption in this country, even if it doesn't feel like it.

Why does it need to be shown that 'he had some personal gain'?

Unless you are advocating a full inquiry and a look at his bank accounts? Maybe it wasn't even a material gain.

It was either the right thing to do or it wasn't.

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, the Maria Bailey thing is entirely different.

Even though no-one was willing to say it for fear of being sued, Bailey was clearly attempting to engage in insurance fraud. Or at the very least make a very frivilous insurance claim with an inflated compensation demand.

Unless it can be shown that there was personal gain in this for Leo, then it will be seen a relatively small breach of process.

I note with some positivity though, that it's great to see people getting worked up by such a relatively inconsequential scandal. It's not that long ago that this country's scandals involved IRA gun-runners being elected Taoiseach, cronyism and profiteering on a massive scale, "You try keeping 3 houses on a TDs salary", an Attorney General providing room & board to a murderer, and former terrorists and murderers being elected to the Dáil.

Headlines because a confidential document was shared with a mate for apparently no reason other than a simple favour, goes to show how far we actually have come in battling corruption in this country, even if it doesn't feel like it.

You are right, this is pretty much a low-level scandal compared to what has gone before. It is not like there was money resting in his account or anything like that.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why does it need to be shown that 'he had some personal gain'?

Unless you are advocating a full inquiry and a look at his bank accounts? Maybe it wasn't even a material gain.

It was either the right thing to do or it wasn't.

If we got money, he could always claim that he wasn't aware of getting the money because it wasn't a monitored account and that he paid it back when he was asked a question about it.

Fann Linn

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it is highly unethical for a government to do something that benefits it, and by extension, the country?

A strange interpretation.

The govt didn't know Blanch.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

If we got money, he could always claim that he wasn't aware of getting the money because it wasn't a monitored account and that he paid it back when he was asked a question about it.

No, he couldn't. Revenue and CAB are vested with the authority to ask you how you came by unexplained money.

FrancieBrady

Fann Linn wrote: »

The govt didn't know Blanch.

Blanch walks into another haymaker.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, the Maria Bailey thing is entirely different.

Even though no-one was willing to say it for fear of being sued, Bailey was clearly attempting to engage in insurance fraud. Or at the very least make a very frivilous insurance claim with an inflated compensation demand.

Unless it can be shown that there was personal gain in this for Leo, then it will be seen a relatively small breach of process.

I note with some positivity though, that it's great to see people getting worked up by such a relatively inconsequential scandal. It's not that long ago that this country's scandals involved IRA gun-runners being elected Taoiseach, cronyism and profiteering on a massive scale, "You try keeping 3 houses on a TDs salary", an Attorney General providing room & board to a murderer, and former terrorists and murderers being elected to the Dáil.

Headlines because a confidential document was shared with a mate for apparently no reason other than a simple favour, goes to show how far we actually have come in battling corruption in this country, even if it doesn't feel like it.

I agree with you, you'll not hear a word from me on that point. I think even the slogan "we're in this together" now has got people pissed off. people keeping popping at the "nothing to gain for him" stance There may not have been but its looking more and more like that doctor has Leo under the thumb..why else would he be meeting him for lunch after being supplied with these documents...the good doctor seems to know exactly what Leo's opinions on immigrants are, loathsome as they sound.. the thread paints a tone of him being able to influence Varadkar and at the same time gloating about it.
The Bag of money emoji and the Leo delivers, seem to me to be the worst part..it's real Crony stuff.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, he couldn't. Revenue and CAB are vested with the authority to ask you how you came by unexplained money.

He could always say it was a personal account used for his Dail expenses.

VonLuck

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why does it need to be shown that 'he had some personal gain'?

There's a world of difference between doing it for personal gain and just doing a friend a favour. The former is a lot more sinister than the latter which could be put down to poor judgement.